Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids

I found this article in the Seattle PI on November 26th. The link to the article is below - One proposal is that owners of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles pay a vehicle fee, the argument being that drivers should bear their fair share to fill the potholes and fix the bridges, regardless of how much or what kind of fuel they use.

If you think this is as crazy as it sounds, please send a short e-mail to your congressman and have this nipped in the bud.

Comments

What if you think it is a logical way to maintain the highway revenue? Another post today declares 99 million gallons of gas saved by HSD. That is about $25 million in lost road tax. Rather than all the wasted money for a GPS device to track miles. It would be easier to just tack $100 to the license fee each year for hybrids, to cover the lost revenue.

UH, I'll have to disagree with you that it is something the ACLU would get involved in. If that were true, we'd have a flat tax on income instead of those who make more being put in a higher tax bracket. (I'll leave it at that rather than derailing the discussion into tax reform...)

As for fees - a great story last night on one of the local news stations in San Francisco. They were interviewing salespeople and potential hybrid customers at dealerships about a tax. The comments were basically that people are already willing to pay more for a hybrid version of a vehicle (e.g. Honda Civic EX Sedan / automatic invoice = $17,422 v. Honda Civic Hybrid sedan invoice = $19,967) so slapping an addition tax of up to $1500 would be insane.

If this starts getting legislated and voted on, my guess is that Hybrid owners will lose the vote.

There are so few of us, that we are in the vast vast minority, and the other drivers will look at it as "it's not a tax on ME, so why not?"

This will have to be stopped before it ever gets voted on or it will not be stopped.

As far as the ACLU, this is DEFINITELY a case of "civil liberties of a select small group of people being violated" by taxing them because of something they bought, while not taxing another person for something THAT PERSON bought.

I guess the idiots on capitol hill didn't think it through (as usual). On one hand, the want to encourage conservation so they give incentives to people who buy hybrids. Now the Chamber of Commerce realizes that there will be less revenue. Of course there will be!!! Simple solution. Just raise the fed gas tax from $0.186 to $1.00. Problem solved.

First off it is not only hybrids. It will be all high mileage cars that will be asked to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining roads. If any group are discriminated against it would be the Hummer2 owners that pay 5 times as much road tax as the Prius, Jetta TDI and HCH drivers. As was pointed out taxation in this country has never been fair. The fairest tax would be a combination of PSI on the road & mileage. The HCH should not get by with half the tax of a regular Civic. That is discrimination. I would not spend that tax credit until 2007 when the IRS decides how it will be doled out.

Both tax situations under discussion (the tax credits for a hybrid purchase and the additional taxes on hybrids to cover lost gas tax revenue) discriminate. One is a discrimintation in favor of hybrids, the other a discrimination against. Both situations set up a different tax climate than the purchase of 'normal' vehicles. And playing with the tax system to discriminate (whether in favor of or against something) is a two-edged sword.

Is taxing hybrids more because they get higher mileage fair? No. But at the same time, is if 'fair' for the government to subsidize the sale of hybrids with tax credits? To that, I would also say 'No.'

Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of the government using the tax system to target any specific group, service, industry or product, either favorably or unfavorably.

As far as the ACLU, this is DEFINITELY a case of "civil liberties of a select small group of people being violated" by taxing them because of something they bought, while not taxing another person for something THAT PERSON bought.

Actually that would be a case that would be hard, if not impossible, to win. Many taxes are item specific and everyone of them have stood up in court.

Now if both person A and person B both in the same jurisdiction at the same time bought a Civic EX or both bought a Civic Hybrid and were taxed differently then you would have a case. However since both cars are different the case falls apart.

I never said anything about "wanting it both ways" at all. Please dont try to attribute quotes to me that I don't make.

What I did say, and I stand by, is that taxing a person for miles driven JUST BECAUSE THEY OWN A HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLE is unfair, if you do not tax ALL the drivers for miles driven.

In other words, don't pick out hybrid drivers for additional taxation just because they were smart enough to buy a hybrid. If you want to tax ALL DRIVERS for miles driven to make up in lost gas tax revenue, then count me in.

don't pick out hybrid drivers for additional taxation just because they were smart enough to buy a hybrid.

Taxation by the mile as is being implemented in Oregon and proposed in CA is for ALL vehicles. Not just high mileage cars. How can you disregard the fact that hybrid drivers are just as much responsible for maintaining the highways as the non-hybrid drivers. It has nothing to do with how clean the car's exhaust may be. It has to do with miles driven on our highways. We are not talking big bucks here. The average 15k mile driver would be paying less than $200 per year in mileage tax. In Oregon that will be in place of the regular state gas tax.

I never said anything about "wanting it both ways" at all. Please dont try to attribute quotes to me that I don't make.

Whoa hold on there cowboy, when I said that I wasn't making a direct quote from you. But while it isn't exactly what you said that is the underlying tone of your posts here.

In post number 6 you said

"As far as the ACLU, this is DEFINITELY a case of "civil liberties of a select small group of people being violated" by taxing them because of something they bought, while not taxing another person for something THAT PERSON bought.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Both are tax consequences of buying a hybrid and both should be addressed. If you are against a special tax treatment in the way of additional taxes on hybrid owners because it is unfair then you should also be against a special tax treatment in the way of a tax credit to hybrid owners because it is unfair.

Fair is a relative thing. Are you paying your fair amount if you are driving a vehicle with very high mileage? Most likely not, most likely you are paying much less per mile driven then the average driver. So is that fair? You will say yes because thats what is relative to you. Others will say no its not.

Since you are getting special tax treatment for buying one maybe you should not be so upset about other special tax treatments.

You are AGAINST additional taxes which target a specific group of people (additional taxes for hybrid owners).

Yet, at the same time, you are FOR tax credits which target a specific group of people (buyers of hybrids).

Your rational for being against the additional taxes are that they are 'unfair' SINCE THEY TARGET A SPECIFIC GROUP. Yet, by this SAME LOGIC, wouldn't tax credits ALSO be 'unfair' since they target a specific group?

Both tax scenarios (tax credits and additional taxes) target specific groups. Just because one 'encourages' while the other 'punishes' doesn't make one more or less 'fair' than the other.

Would you be happier if this thread where re-titled "Hybrids and Taxes" so we could discuss both scenarios? Would that be 'fair'?

The two have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that they are completely opposing views:

You are probably right. The tax incentive for driving a clean car has little to do with the fact that a hybrid has the same impact on the road system as a non-hybrid. The Congress is trying to find ways to maintain the road system with a drop in highway revenues. That loss of revenue is directly related to less gas bought per mile driven. Logical solution is to tax by the mile driven.

I will propose to my Senators and Congressman that a flat 2 cents per mile be charged to all vehicles on the highways. One cent to be given to the state the other to the Feds for maintaining our highways. That will be a little more than the current gas tax and should be enough to start fixing our infrastructure. A fair tax would be a true novelty.